Syracuse, NY – Few studies have looked at the long-term impact of police security cameras in reducing crime.

The John Jay College of Criminal Justice, in New York City, knew of no authoritative studies on police cameras. The Police Executive Research Fund, in Washington D.C., couldn’t point to any research either, though they did share testimonies from police chiefs touting the technology.

The biggest problem may be the systems are too new: experts say the lasting impact of cameras may not be known until several years’ worth of data can be analyzed.

The few published studies point to varying levels of success.

The consensus is that cameras do not reduce all crimes to the same extent. In general, premeditated crimes go down more than crimes of passion, or those fueled by alcohol or drugs.

Researchers were also uncertain how much of the decline was due to cameras and how much was due to other factors. Those factors include the downward trend in overall crime, the impact of good police work, economic development or even the eviction of a single drug dealer.

A critic of police security cameras said it’s no surprise that crime dropped when cameras were first installed in Syracuse. The impact decreases as time goes on, argued David Murakami Wood, an associate professor of surveillance at Queens College in Kingston, Ontario.

Wood argues that the cost of security cameras and the time police devote to them could be better spent elsewhere. He said studies over time have proven inconclusive.

“Long-term studies tend to be very mixed,” Wood said. “Actually, there’s nothing to say either way.”

Whether police security cameras are worth the expense and effort may be debated, but experts agree on some points:

• Cameras only prevent crime committed by rational people. A criminal must stop to think about the risk of being caught while near a police camera. Crimes of passion, or those fueled by drugs or alcohol, may not be discouraged by cameras.

• Cameras have a bigger impact on keeping order than preventing violent crimes. They help stop disputes, loud noises, loitering and other non-violent offenses, but have less impact in preventing crimes such as gunfire.

• Cameras have mixed results because criminals react in different ways. Some are deterred by the thought of being on tape while others act on impulse. A camera that stems drug dealing at one corner may not at another corner nearby.

• Cameras are only effective if police prove they are taking action. If criminals find there are no repercussions for dealing drugs under a camera, they will continue.

• Cameras can help solve crimes and convict criminals. As the police success stories show, cameras can help investigators find criminals. And a suspect caught on video is much more likely to confess, saving time for police, prosecutors and judges. This is true whether or not overall crime decreases near the camera.

Here’s a look at some of the studies cited by advocates and critics of camera programs.

A preliminary evaluation of camera surveillance on Syracuse’s Near West Side:

This preliminary, six-month study by the John F. Finn Institute for Public Safety found cameras were responsible for reducing crime nearly across the board, except for reports of gunfire and vandalism.

The biggest decreases came in drug crimes, disturbances, suspicious incidents, disturbances and other “nuisance” calls.

Results included: a 46 percent drop in drug-related calls, a 16.5 percent drop in dispute calls, a 21 percent decrease in disturbances, an 18 percent drop in suspicious incidents and an 11.5 percent drop in other “nuisance” calls.

There was a modest increase in reports of gunfire, but the study noted that there were so few cases reported in the six months that the camera impact could not be reliably measured.

The reductions led researchers “to cautiously conclude that the cameras have indeed had beneficial effects on crime and disorder,” the report stated.

A Finn Institute study of Schenectady's police cameras in June 2008 found uneven results from camera to camera. Researchers noted that Schenectady’s cameras are so spread out that each one had to be studied separately. By comparison, Syracuse’s nine cameras are in a cluster, so the impacts are measured as a group.

When it came to the impact in Schenectady, the Finn study concluded: “We have found that the (city) cameras have had effects on crime, but the effects have not been achieved consistently. In this, the cameras in Schenectady collectively follow the pattern displayed by cameras whose effects have been evaluated by previous research. We further found that cameras appear to be particularly successful at reducing disorder.”

Preliminary findings of the crime deterrent effects of the San Francisco camera program

That study used a different method than the Finn studies. It looked at the distance in which crimes occurred from a camera. The idea was to determine whether crime was prevented, or simply moved further away from the camera.

Their research found that property crimes – especially thefts – went down about 22 percent within 100 feet of the cameras, but stayed the same further away.

Researchers found no decrease in violent crime within 500 feet of the cameras, with one exception: homicides declined within 250 feet of the cameras, but went up a similar amount between 250 and 500 feet away. They concluded homicides were simply moved further away from the cameras, not prevented.

Assessing the impact of police security cameras in London, England

One of the biggest – and perhaps most studied – camera system in the world is located in London. Far more extensive than the Syracuse network, it includes an estimated 420,000 cameras that can track people across great swaths of the city.

A 2005 study by the British Home Office, tasked with running the camera system, showed overall reductions in some types of crime, but not in others. It concluded that the camera systems studied had “little overall effect on crime levels.”

However, the researchers made some observations.

“Impulsive crimes (e.g. alcohol-related crimes) were less likely to be reduced than premeditated crime (e.g. theft of motor vehicles),” the researchers concluded. In the studied areas, crime matched the overall British trends: violence against people rose while motor vehicle thefts decreased.

The best systems were linked across different areas – such as a hospital, the hospital parking lot and surrounding area, the British study noted. Results in downtown and residential camera systems varied, with crime going up in some and down in others after cameras were installed.

They concluded that police security cameras needed to be implemented with certain goals in mind and fit in to a larger police strategy.

“The use of (cameras) needs to be supported by a strategy outlining the objectives of the system and how these will be fulfilled,” they wrote. “This needs to take account of local crime problems and prevention measures already in place.”

Experts agree on certain security camera trends

Despite having no consensus on the overall impact, studies have determined certain trends:

• Cameras help maintain overall order in the immediate area, reducing the number of times police are needed.

• The more a criminal is concerned about being caught, the bigger impact a camera has in preventing the crime.

• Cameras help police catch criminals once a crime happens. That can keep those criminals from offending again elsewhere, reducing overall crime. Researchers admit there is no way to quantify that benefit, because those future crimes may not have been committed under a police camera.

• Cameras make citizens feel safer.

• Cameras work best in combination with other initiatives, such as better lighting, signs alerting people to the cameras and real-time monitoring.

The effect police cameras have on violent crime is more uncertain, studies show. That may be because violent crimes are more often committed on impulse, before the perpetrator thinks about the consequences.